Michigan's gay marriage ban struck down

[The Rabbi]

We can get married all we want in 17 states and growing (fast).

You're too late. We're legitimate.

Too legit, too legit to quit, baby!

And winning was all it ever was about to you folks.

If nothing else I hope forcing legitimacy onto the nation makes you feel better about yourself.

Since "winning" means equality, sure. Equality is what we're "winning".

You already have equality.
Another red herring disposed of.

 

[The Rabbi]

Answered in Post #120 already.

A man can marry a woman, a woman cannot marry a woman. The basis of discrimination is on gender which is unconstitutional without a compelling government interest - something that does not exist when comparing like situated couples. Those couples being tax paying, law abiding, US Citizen, infertile, consenting, adults in different-sex relationships and tax paying, law abiding, US Citizen, infertile, consenting, adults in same-sex relationships.


>>>>

Just curious. You brought fertility into this twice.

Would not Roe V. Wade prohibit this as a basis due to reproductive privacy rights?

Not arguing, simply curious

Often one of the reasons that opponents of SSCM try to argue (unsuccessfully) is that Civil Marriage is based on procreation. I say unsuccessfully because there is not one State in the Union that requries that a couple be fertile, as a matter of fact I could show you a law that the couple is required to be infertile.

^^
Straw man argument in play. Doesn't understand the difference between tendency and requirement.

 

[Seawytch]

What was the basis of discimination in anti-miscegenation statutes? On the basis of race. What is the basis of discrimination on gay marriage?

Last I checked such laws in the past were written based on the racial composition of the couple. These laws are written in terms of the gender composition of the couple (i.e. one man and one woman).


Race is a biological factor, gender is a biological factor.


The basis of discrimination, technically as a function of law, is gender.
>>>>

Wrong.
Women can get married
Men can get married.
Ergo no discrimination whatsoever.

Funny that you brought up Loving v Virginia earlier...

Instead, the State [before the Virginia Supreme Court] argues that the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause, as illuminated by the statements of the Framers, is only that state penal laws containing an interracial element as part of the definition of the offense must apply equally to whites and Negroes in the sense that members of each race are punished to the same degree. Thus, the State contends that, because its miscegenation statutes punish equally both the white and the Negro participants in an interracial marriage, these statutes, despite their reliance on racial classifications, do not constitute an invidious discrimination based upon race. The second argument advanced by the State assumes the validity of its equal application theory. The argument is that, if the Equal Protection Clause does not outlaw miscegenation statutes because of their reliance on racial classifications, the question of constitutionality would thus become whether there was any rational basis for a State to treat interracial marriages differently from other marriages. On this question, the State argues, the scientific evidence is substantially in doubt and, consequently, this Court should defer to the wisdom of the state legislature in adopting its policy of discouraging interracial marriages.

So familiar...

 

[G.T.]

Another victory for freedom in the face of seething hatred. Good stuff.

 

[Seawytch]

And winning was all it ever was about to you folks.

If nothing else I hope forcing legitimacy onto the nation makes you feel better about yourself.

Since "winning" means equality, sure. Equality is what we're "winning".

You already have equality.
Another red herring disposed of.

Well yes, I do...I'm legally married.

Not full equality though...when my license is "good" in all 50 states (not just 18) like 1st cousins that marry in HI...then I'll have equality.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And winning was all it ever was about to you folks.

If nothing else I hope forcing legitimacy onto the nation makes you feel better about yourself.

Since "winning" means equality, sure. Equality is what we're "winning".

You already have equality.
Another red herring disposed of.

We're not seeing you cite any case law in support of your opinions, unlike others. Consequently your opinions are subjective, unsupported, and wrong.

 

[The Rabbi]

Since "winning" means equality, sure. Equality is what we're "winning".

You already have equality.
Another red herring disposed of.

We're not seeing you cite any case law in support of your opinions, unlike others. Consequently your opinions are subjective, unsupported, and wrong.

Wwll no. Guess again
California high court upholds same-sex marriage ban - CNN.com

 

[The Rabbi]

Since "winning" means equality, sure. Equality is what we're "winning".

You already have equality.
Another red herring disposed of.

Well yes, I do...I'm legally married.

Not full equality though...when my license is "good" in all 50 states (not just 18) like 1st cousins that marry in HI...then I'll have equality.

Go lobby for legal marriage of consanguineous adults. Let us know how it works out for you.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

You already have equality.
Another red herring disposed of.

Well yes, I do...I'm legally married.

Not full equality though...when my license is "good" in all 50 states (not just 18) like 1st cousins that marry in HI...then I'll have equality.

Go lobby for legal marriage of consanguineous adults. Let us know how it works out for you.

See the First Cousin part? Too late...

 

[WorldWatcher]

You already have equality.
Another red herring disposed of.

We're not seeing you cite any case law in support of your opinions, unlike others. Consequently your opinions are subjective, unsupported, and wrong.

Wwll no. Guess again
California high court upholds same-sex marriage ban - CNN.com

I guess you really didn't read the Strauss v. Horton decision did you? It doesn't say that homosexuals have the same rights as heterosexuals, it affirmed that Prop 8 was passed in a constitutional manner and effectively the Prop 8 "measure carves out a narrow and limited exception to these state constitutional rights".

In other words they are being denied access to the same rights, but that the State Constitutional amendment carved out an exception to equal access to those rights. With that exception to equal rights being in place in the State Constitution then the CSC hands were tied.


>>>>

 

[Pop23]

It's basic statistics that married couples without children use less welfare then other groups as well.

Interesting.

Are there any statistics that show the jobs provided by couples having children? There are always trade offs are there not?

That actually bring up an interesting thought.

When the childless couple gets older and retires, how much of their Social Security check will be from the offspring of the couple that accepted Welfare? I would think much more than the Welfare couple will get from the offspring of the childless couple.

Then again, how many childless couples provided Soldiers that were deployed to any of the many wars across the globe?

Seems to me the childless couples make out quite nicely when you look at the broader picture.

Now there's a compelling State interest for ya'll

But there I go, being Captain Obvious again.